CG's Generous FAR Loophole Yielding More Additions

"And changing FAR is some ways is worse economic threat to owners than the 'eminent domain' thing. As in eminent domain you are paid fair value."

No shit. The math works out this way. Property value is about $700 per square foot. Construction costs $150 to $200 depending on how complex a job you try and what materials you choose. Thats $700 in equity for an investment of $200 for a total after cost of $500 per square foot.

Anyway, my building now is 2000 square feet. Full build out under R6 would be around 4000. 2000x500=$1,000,000 potential value. Downzoning will take that value you for me and not give anything in return except fewer future neighbors. Please some one give me "Eminent Domain Abuse", please abuse me.

Chill says "My beef is with developers (like this one) who build hideous carbuncles, as David so aptly described them, above." Downzoning does not insure that hideous carbunkles will not be built. When demand for housing is so great and the difference between property value and construction cost is so great (700-200=500) buildings are going to be built, variances are going to be sought and granted. The difference is in frictional costs, instead of putting 200 per square foot into the building the building the owner will put 150 into the actual building (read hideous carbunkle built with shoddy materials and itinerant labor) and $50 per square foot into lawyers to fight the DoB.

Everybody has their favorite buildings. But owners (developers of owner occupiers) don't seek to build a shit building, better buildings bring higher rents and higher values.

Another thing downzoning will do is give developers, who have access to the regulators and the legal and engineering expertise to fight for variances , a comparitive advantage over owner occupants. One of the things that has always made Carroll Gardens a great neighborhood, even in the bad old days, is the high percentage of owner occupants. Three family owner occupieds have built in economic diversity and owners on the stoop keeping their eye on the block. Downzoning will unfairly disadvantage owner occupants.

With the price of property so high new buyers are tending increasingly to chop their properties up and sell them off as coops. No beef with that, its their property after all, but it does radically cut the number of apartments available for rent. Less supply equals higher rents.

Now Chillll your assumption that I bought my property because of the unused FAR is incorrect, although with my strong positions on the matter how would you know it. However, the price I paid included that unused FAR. To take that FAR away without compensation will decrease the value of my property, I really can't afford that, since, like most of you I have almost my entire savings wrapped up in this house.

Also, as the downzoning is being proposed over here there will ultimately be more surface space allowed to build out in partial exchange for height restrictions. That will force the future development out horizontally in stead of vertically. That will be much worse for those who crave wide open spaces and sunlight (maybe they miss Wyoming or Arizona). Under the present zoning I want to add about half of what a full build out would be (approx 1000 square feet) above my building. Change the zoning, I'm still adding the 1000 square feet (after all its worth $500,000 of value to me) but I'm adding it in my back yard on the first and second floor. My neighbors are going to be facing walls extended into my back yard and their sun will be cut off. That is not my desire but the downzoners will be forcing me into it. Thats what they call is Spanish "La cura resulta mas mala que la enfermedad". There is a lot of that going around in land use planning these days.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at July 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Oh yeah and J we can agree to disagree. I think most home owners in this neighborhood do not have enough money that they can afford to give up this much value. So we agree most homeowners are not real flush with cash but we disagree that therefor we should throw away the value of our property because of development paranoia.

It works this way with my property plan, the rent I plan to charge for my 1000 square foot addition will actually be less than what I charge our present tenants (great couple helping me pay my mortgage). They have 600 squre feet and pay 1700 a month x 12 = $20,400 per year/600 squre feet = $34 dollars per square foot per year. At $200 per square foot construction cost that would pay for itself in 5.8 years. I plan on stretching that out a little and renting is for less, about $2500 x 12 = 30,000/1000 = $30 per squre foot. That way it will take me six years and eight months to pay it off. Still a tremendous bargain (throw in a little rent inflation assumption and it gets better).

So my point is that neither I nor my less flush neighbors can afford the downzoning. Those who are advocating it are simply not bothered by this sort of economic reasoning or they have so much money they can afford their mortgages, maybe don't have mortages or they just want to keep new people (young diverse renters going to the bars on Smith Street).

And another issue of personal economy, we have children. They love the neighborhood and want to stay, they can't afford rent here. We can pay off the cost of our addition in 10 or 12 years and let our daughter rent it at a bargain rate.

Downzoning will drive your kids out of the neighborhood as rental supply is restricted and rents inflate accordingly. Our parents and their grandchildren will be separated as the kids go seek affordable rents somewhere else (Brownsville, East New York, Jersey City?).

Back to my original point on Eminent Domain, please abuse me.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at July 14, 2007 1:37 PM

Well Anonymous 5:46 maybe you should look on 3rd Place off of Court, I know its not Brooklyn Heights but there are some new units coming on the market there shortly unless some of the posters here can stop them. But if you don"t find anything there you can afford the downzoners have an answer for you. Wait for them to upzone another neighborhood, in this case the Gowanus, you can rent over there if you can"t affor Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill or Carroll Gardens. That is someone elses neighborhood and not in the backyard of anybody, the downzoners want affordable housing over there, in Carroll Gardens the neighbors only want unaffordable housing.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at July 14, 2007 7:35 PM

This neighborhood is doing fine under the old zoning. There hasn"t been a single "brownstone" bought up and converted, just a few additions, some in better taste than others. You are right, I hope to stay ahead of the game and have my thing done before any adverse consequences befall me.

However, the math is not phony. The present owners and the future renters in this neighborhood all stand to lose a lot with the downzoning and the architectural character of the neighborhood won't fare much.

Stability, consitency and all those values are fine but not really in tune with the down zoning. If you want to keep the character of this neighborhood in tact all the manufacturing zones around it should be maintained, that is the true defining character of this neighborhood. People have been adding on and changing these buildings for 120 years. There really is no pure standard of neighborhoodness to go by. Actually to stop adding on and changing the buildings at this point would be out of character for the neighborhood.

Sneering at me or accusing me of profit motivation will not change the essentially reactionary character of the downzoning, it is in the end a "keep people out" "not in my back yard" "build almost nothing anywhere near anything else" approach to land use.

I'm not scared of the downzoning I'm just pointing out that it is a substantial economic sacrifice for both owners and renters. If you want to give up your rights, fine, don't build, and don't sell to anyone that will build, that is your right.

And what is scandalous about this argument unless you are afraid that some of the people you and the other downzoners have been scaring with the demon "over development" will figure out what they stand to lose (a lot).

Just where are these "overdeveloped" neighborhoods that no one wants to live in. This is like Yogi Berra "no one goes to Broadway anymore, it is too crowded." The downzoners point to success stories like Bensonhurst where recent immigrants crowd ten people into a studio apartment. Thats some success story.

If you really have a landmark block, landmark it. And if my block was really a pristine survivor of 19th Century architecture I'd gladly put in the required windows. As is I plan to be as loyal to the existing architecture as I can be. But those 19th Century buildings aren't being built anymore, neither the materials nor the skills are available.

And if you have other uses for your money fine, good for you. Adding on to my building is a good use for my money though.

Apparently I touched a nerve with the calculations though. Maybe you should think about what you will be giving up when you make the neighborhood over with your fantasy.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at July 15, 2007 8:58 PM